Seana Graham has started a useful discussion over at "Confessions of Ignorance" on the subject of
riots and how they often start out as peaceful social events.
Literature is essential for the understanding of human motivation, and despite the valient efforts of
Laurie Taylor on Radio Four, sociology seems to fall very short of the point when it comes to understanding
how people behave in groups. As he has recently admitted, sociology can be very boring.
The recent riots in London have had a far reaching effect. I did not go to Britain during most of the 1980's
largely due to the TV reporting of how the miners' strike and street violence in London was handled.
The ongoing references to "A Clockwork Orange" can often be misinterpreted that thuggery is
endemic to working class life, which is not the case. The book is actually an anti-violence analysis
showing that institutionalised violence, mechanical and subtly organised is the other side of the coin.
The CRS (riot police) in France was also much scrutined at that time.
I don't think that the film of "A Clockwork Orange", which lacks warmth,is actually true to life... that there are people who so enjoy violence that they join
punitive institutions. However, there are many personality types who, when unable to negotiate,
finally capitulate to using violence.
The film "If", which exposes life in a British public school is a more insightful work, I think.
Contemporary psychology often uses the clinical diagnosis of Asberger's syndrome to explain why some
people seem to behave in a mechnical and chilling manner.
Reading "Tartuffe" is more useful, as Moliere understood social manipulation and how people
collude when their own self interest is very threatened.
It used be fashionable to point the finger a lot at the hypocricy of others.
The best writers are the ones who engagingly reveal the hypocricy of those who make very strict judgements, without taking circumstances into account.
Bergson wrote extensively on the humourous effects that ensue when people behave like machines.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I haven't seen either Clockwork Orange or If, oddly enough. I have, for some reason, seem several versions of Tartuffe.
I second the idea that sociology can be boring. Give me a good novelist any day when it comes to insight.
While it's worth reading the book by Anthony Burgess, as you are interested in language, the film, which Kubrick finally banned from being viewed during his lifetime, is not for the squeamish.
It is now assessed to be a very humourous satire and the rehabilitation inflicted on the anti-hero by a band of hypocritic experts and politicians is very witty. However, I think the choreographed scenes of violence must have paved the way for directors like John Woo, whose films I will never see.
There are critics who analyse the aestheticization of violence who help viewers come to terms with these works.
I find it difficult...
I don't know if I want to come to terms with the anesthetization of violence, although I think to some degree I already have. But I will go for Clockwork Orange the book first if I ever get around to any of it.
I can no longer go to the cinema without either leaving because of the serious ugliness portrayed or spending up to one third of the time with my eyes closed.
I know that the reality of war is now everywhere, but I tend to agree with Sir Philip Sidney who having seen armed combat was astonished that people would wish to re-enact their unhappiness on the stage.
Many unimagainative directors thing that they are shocking the comfortable bourgeoisie. They are mostly wasting money and time.
Yes, the fact that we have a tendency to get inured to things works against that philosophy.
Post a Comment